IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Wasim Sadiq Nargal, J.
Radha Sharma – Petitioner
Versus
State of J&K & Ors. – Respondents
OWP No. 902/2010
Decided On : 01-03-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks compensation for negligence leading to death. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding negligence and compensation claims. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court analyzes liability under relevant laws and principles. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. application of strict liability for hazardous activities discussed. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 5. court determines maintainability of the compensation claim. (Para 29 , 30) |
| 6. court concludes on compensation amount awarded. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
JUDGMENT :
Wasim Sadiq Nargal, J.
Gist
1. This writ petition is filed by the Petitioner seeking an appropriate writ of mandamus directing Respondents to pay a compensation of Rs. 20 Lacs along with interest to the petitioner.
Primary Facts
2. The case of the petitioner is that her son, Vishal Sharma lost his life due to electrocution when exposed to live electric wire hanging between the poles at the height of 3 to 4 ft. from the ground. This Act was totally attributable to the negligence of the Respondents. It is the specific case of the Petitioner that the matter was brought to the notice of Respondents, the Electricity Department and a request was made to straighten the electric lines/service lines and maintain the height at safe and required height in terms of Electricity Act and Rules framed thereunder, so that no one may come in contact with the live wires, however, needful was not done to rectify and remove the defects by straightening the electric wires by keeping them at safe height, as a consequence of which, the son of the Petitioner died.
3. It is stated that the Petitioner's son was only 13 years old and was a brilliant student who had secured 88% marks as per the School Certificate and was studying at Jagriti Mission School, Talab Tillo, Jammu and had a very bright future ahead of him. However, due to the carelessness and negligence of the Respondents, the Petitioner lost her son at a very young age.
4. It is stated that Petitioner's, Son Vishal Sharma was on a visit to his maternal uncle's home. On 22.07.2009, while he was working in the village Panghor in the agriculture field, he came in contact with live electric wires hanging at the height of about 4 to 5 ft. above the ground level and suffered a massive electric shock and injuries on his neck. Consequently, he was shifted to Government Medical College Hospital, Jammu but as a result of the aforesaid electric shock, he died. The same is reflected on perusal of the post-mortem report conducted by GMC, Jammu.
5. In this context, FIR Bearing No. 05/2010 under section 304-A RPC has been registered against Respondents on 07.01.2010 at Police Station Gajansoo, Jammu.
Submissions of the Petitioner
6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently argued that the Son of the Petitioner has died due to the negligent acts attributable to Respondents who failed to maintain the electric wires as provided under the provisions of the Electricity Act and Rules framed thereunder and thus, the state is under legal obligation to compensate the Petitioner because due to their negligent Act, a precious human life was lost. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently argued that the state is under legal obligation to protect the life of its Citizens. It is further submitted that the state and its functionaries have failed to discharge the constitutional and statutory obligations by not taking requisite safety measures and as a consequence of which, precious life of a young son of the Petitioner has been cut short and accordingly, the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir, now, Union Territory is under obligation to compensate the Petitioner by way of damages.
7. It is submitted, though Respondents have stated in their objections that the height of the wires at the relevant point of time was 1
Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India
Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2001 (2) SCC 9
M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari (2002) 2 SCC 162
Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari & Anr.
The court confirmed that governmental entities can be held strictly liable for damages resulting from negligence in maintaining public safety regarding hazardous activities, including electricity sup....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of strict liability, holding the respondents absolutely liable to compensate for the death caused by their negligence in maintaining ....
Electricity providers are strictly liable for accidents caused by negligence in maintaining infrastructure, with compensation calculated based on the deceased's earnings and family dependency.
The principle of strict liability applies to cases involving the negligence of the electricity department in maintaining electric lines, making the department absolutely liable to compensate the vict....
The court held that the respondents' gross negligence in failing to provide safety measures around the transformer led to the electrocution of a minor, warranting compensation for the victim's injuri....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.